ok guys .. i was thinking it was appreciated .. so then pls get this issue discussed .. if wanted i can revert it .. but tbh ...i'm also thinking most of our "partners" are not updating etc .. and when new users visiting our forums and noticing directly 3-4 partner in this section are completely out of date.. i'm begin think this isn't the best promotion for the ecosystem IMO ...my 2 cents

The problem is that expectation that partners are supposed to update. This being a forum and all... perhaps the reason you don't see a lot of updates is because of the often negative teeth nashing they sometimes take. Some of it deserved, some of it isn't. Nonetheless... are there guidelines somewhere about this requirement? I never saw them if there are.

Most partner sections are simply a link with logo to company page and/or a small write-up.

I have never been asked, nor have I asked partners to my companies to give updates or be removed from mention from our websites.

I'm just making it clear from a business development perspective this is two steps back. There is no need to waiver [member=224]cass[/member]. It is after all a forum poll, not a stakeholders vote.

Good luck to the 'community' in making a case that you are attractive to businesses as a platform when the actions taken today are to devalue them in the one communication channel we got.

You get what you ask for.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 04:42:32 pm by BunkerChain Labs »

Logged

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro!+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

If they are not updating in the forum then they don't need a forum section. Just slap their logo on the bitshares.org homepage and be done. Also who decides when someone becomes a partner? What is the criteria?

I can only say that to put all active partners or at least this is what we thought we were, in same boat as thirdparty projects has now made me realize that my focus will have to be on OpenLedger as a platform with its own image, and do less mentioning Bitshares all the time. In fact this decision should have been made little earlier as I am already spending thousands of dollars on a branding video where I felt BitShares needed a good mentioning as a partner, hmm.

I will not use the word partner of bitshares anymore an will focus on the DEX OpenLedger which I realize now is considered a thirdparty project, as well as my projects OBITS, BTSR etc.

I throught the work I did was what a partner would be doing making sure BitShares was known to the world, thinking that my sucess, was your success, was my sucess, but I guess that phrase dont work anymore inside the community, everybody thinking only about their own little corner of income.

Growth will have to come from within BTS without partners, good luck with that.

Good thing I am not fully depending on BTS for the future and putting me now in the same box as other parties not having done anything for the community it makes me sad. Its like another confirmation that we are all alike, and I dont like it.

You made me shift direction today, thinking differently. All due to a few people, crazy!

I thought of BitShares community as a partner, and all the time BitShares thought of OpenLedger and CCEDK as a way to get BTS promoted and marketed.

Well I will then continue as a thirdparty if that's what the community wants, and no more freebees to projects inside bts in the future.

Ronny ([member=23432]ccedk[/member]), you shouldn't make decisions based on a forum thread. And you should realize that the desire of many in the community to be careful about labeling "partners" has nothing to do with how we feel about CCEDk/OpenLedger. Instead is had to do with supposed partners that have been announced but never materialized and from whom we have never heard a peep again. Some may actually be working behind the scenes, but until we have something much more concrete, we should not be labeling them as "partners". One has even been accused of being a scam. I think that's probably going way too far, and everyone should have a chance to prove themselves. But until that time, if we use the label "partner" too liberally, this negative image could be a problem for not only Bitshares but also for the proven partners such as CCEDK/OpenLedger.

With that in mind, I would personally be in favor of listing the proven partners that have known, working products (at least in beta) such as CCEDK/OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, OpenPOS.

Ronny ([member=23432]ccedk[/member]), you shouldn't make decisions based on a forum thread. And you should realize that the desire of many in the community to be careful about labeling "partners" has nothing to do with how we feel about CCEDk/OpenLedger. Instead is had to do with supposed partners that have been announced but never materialized and from whom we have never heard a peep again. Some may actually be working behind the scenes, but until we have something much more concrete, we should not be labeling them as "partners". One has even been accused of being a scam. I think that's probably going way too far, and everyone should have a chance to prove themselves. But until that time, if we use the label "partner" too liberally, this negative image could be a problem for not only Bitshares but also for the proven partners such as CCEDK/OpenLedger.

This! We very much appreciate what you have done for BitShares and would love to see more in the future!

One point that hasn't been brought up (and it has been brought to my attention by Ronald Kramer) is that outside people that are not familiar with how things work in BitShares might think that OpenLedger has "taken over" the BitShares platform. Instead we should make clear for many that BitShares is the underlying technology for OpenLedger that that it is a public good and only the BitShares shareholders own it.

Cleaning up the forum was a good task. I think the forum structure is still quite confusing and has too many sub sections.

Will [member=224]cass[/member] include BitShares main projects on the new www.bitshares.org website (OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, BitShares Munich "OpenPOS"? We currently lack the presentation of Bitshares top products and services.

In my opinion OpenLedger is a top partner for the the BitShares Ecosystem and should be frequently named. OpenLedger should also have their extra forum section to publish status updates and for community feedback.

Such big changes should not be done within a few days and based on a few forum opinions. What if some ETH guys would start a forum threat to change the full BitShares branding? All future branding and marketing changes should be organized in agreement with CNX & CNI directly. CNI will be responsible for BitShares marketing soon.

One point that hasn't been brought up (and it has been brought to my attention by Ronald Kramer) is that outside people that are not familiar with how things work in BitShares might think that OpenLedger has "taken over" the BitShares platform. Instead we should make clear for many that BitShares is the underlying technology for OpenLedger that that it is a public good and only the BitShares shareholders own it.

I fully agree in this point, but as long as there are no one promoting bts itself apart from myself at least worldwide with the promotion of OpenLedger it is easy for people to think like that.

So what it takes is some few people co ordinating efforts to bring the marketing of BTS outthere

Initiallty OpenLedger was intended as a way of presenting BTS to the world, untill now it is still doing this as its primary goal, and not so sure whats bad about it

allyou ned is more information on the DEX itself for instance in the entrance when regsistering to ensure people know the difference.

Point is that mainstream consumers dont care about this and that but look more for the functionality, an the idea was to give them this without too much techie stuff.

Why cant they both be promoting eachother?

If there had been an active marketing team promoting Bitshares it would have been clear already that BTS is the underlying technology, heck I write it in every single article I do, so the fact that people think like this is perhaps becasue most of the info comes from one side only meaning from Openldger and CCEDK, and this you dont change my saying Openledger is a 3rd party but insetad you need to appreciate and use the flow of information for people to be better oriented.

One point that hasn't been brought up (and it has been brought to my attention by Ronald Kramer) is that outside people that are not familiar with how things work in BitShares might think that OpenLedger has "taken over" the BitShares platform. Instead we should make clear for many that BitShares is the underlying technology for OpenLedger that that it is a public good and only the BitShares shareholders own it.

I fully agree in this point, but as long as there are no one promoting bts itself apart from myself at least worldwide with the promotion of OpenLedger it is easy for people to think like that.

So what it takes is some few people co ordinating efforts to bring the marketing of BTS outthere

Initiallty OpenLedger was intended as a way of presenting BTS to the world, untill now it is still doing this as its primary goal, and not so sure whats bad about it

allyou ned is more information on the DEX itself for instance in the entrance when regsistering to ensure people know the difference.

Point is that mainstream consumers dont care about this and that but look more for the functionality, an the idea was to give them this without too much techie stuff.

Why cant they both be promoting eachother?

If there had been an active marketing team promoting Bitshares it would have been clear already that BTS is the underlying technology, heck I write it in every single article I do, so the fact that people think like this is perhaps becasue most of the info comes from one side only meaning from Openldger and CCEDK, and this you dont change my saying Openledger is a 3rd party but insetad you need to appreciate and use the flow of information for people to be better oriented.

I agree. The fact is that BitShares can and should have many "white label" outlets to the world. Some of them may use BitShares without even acknowledging the underlying assets. But when we get someone who is both developing a new brand and promoting the underlying chain, I say "hallelujah" the planets have aligned!

Logged

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind. These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.